Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor convert_input to Perform tasks via helper function #3338

Open
wants to merge 29 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Sweetdevil144
Copy link
Contributor

@Sweetdevil144 Sweetdevil144 commented Jul 18, 2024

Description

Following changes were performed :

  • Shift functions to check for missing files
  • Return from convert_input via a helper function
  • Refactor extra variables in run.meta.analysis
  • Update corresponding test files and add tests to ensure do_conversions isn't affected by current applied changes

Motivation and Context

The main motive for these changes is to simplify convert_input by trying to break some of its components and branch it to other functions.

This PR may fix a task within #3307

Review Time Estimate

  • Immediately
  • Within one week
  • When possible

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • My name is in the list of CITATION.cff
  • I have updated the CHANGELOG.md.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

Return from convert_input via a helper function

Update corresponding test files and add tests to ensure do_conversions isn't affected by current applied changes

Signed-off-by: Abhinav Pandey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Abhinav Pandey <[email protected]>
Comment on lines 740 to 743
result_sizes <- checked.missing.files$result_sizes;
outlist <- checked.missing.files$outlist;
existing.input <- checked.missing.files$existing.input;
existing.dbfile <- checked.missing.files$existing.dbfile;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is their any other way to unwrap these variables in a single context line. For example, inheriting the above list and utilising the list$var syntax in-place. A lot of variable operations(assignment and reassignment) would consume extra memory in the heap. Should we also implement a Garbage Collection (gc()) or is it automatically applied in R ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rather than try to unwrap them in one line I'd consider whether they need to be assigned separate names at all -- e.g. can all places below that refer to result_sizes refer to checked.missing.files$result_sizes instead? If that's what you're suggesting by "utilising the list$var syntax in-place", then yes, I like that approach.

That said these objects are all very small and the runtime/memory overhead from reassignment will be negligible and R's reference-counting garbage collection will take care of the cleanup for us. Happily though, the same optimization gives (what I think is) a substantial improvement in code clarity, so I endorse it on those grounds.

@Sweetdevil144

This comment was marked as outdated.

base/db/R/get.machine.info.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/db/R/get.machine.info.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/db/R/get.machine.info.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

if (nrow(machine) == 0) {
PEcAn.logger::logger.error("machine not found", host$name)
return(NULL)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that returning from get.machine.info could have different behavior than returning from convert.input. I'll need to read to the end to know whether that difference matters, but mentioning it now before I forget

base/db/tests/testthat/test.check.missing.files.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/db/R/add.database.entries.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/db/R/add.database.entries.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/db/tests/testthat/test.check.missing.files.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
test_that("`check_missing_files()` able to return correct missing files", {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Filename should match function name (so use _ not .)
Come to think of it, same for the files containing the function definitions

existing.input = list(data.frame(file = character(0))),
existing.dbfile = list(data.frame(file = character(0)))
))
mockery::stub(convert_input, "add.database.entries", list(input.id = 1, dbfile.id = 1))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feels like a lot of mocks and stubs, but I don't see any that aren't needed. Hopefully as we break up the function further we'll be able to simplify these.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Sweetdevil144 Sweetdevil144 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(need to update calls too)

Updating calls as well as tests

base/db/R/check.missing.files.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Sweetdevil144 Sweetdevil144 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra checks fail due to some reasons

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Sweetdevil144 Sweetdevil144 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

extras check fail?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants